listProjectSounds

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format, the fact that the SDK does not automatically play sounds, the gating and permission errors (403, 401), and the auth requirement. It could be more explicit about being a read-only operation with no side effects, but it is largely transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively long but every sentence provides value. It is structured: purpose, return format, behavioral context, gating/auth, usage guidance. It is front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but still well-organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure, behavioral details, prerequisites, error conditions, and usage context. It also distinguishes from relevant sibling tools. Completely sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema's description of `appPackage`. Baseline is 3, and the description meets that without adding further parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List a project's named-sound library' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool addProjectSound by stating 'DON'T USE to add sounds (use addProjectSound).'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'USE to see which sound names app code can play, or before adding a sound to avoid a duplicate name. DON'T USE to add sounds (use addProjectSound).' It also mentions prerequisites like a linked Extentos account and access grant permissions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.